K. Vijay Kumar, a 1975-batch IPS officer of Tamil Nadu, and at present Director, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy (SVPNPA), Hyderabad, has submitted before the Madras High Court that the State Principal Secretary, Home, “suppressed the information whether I was considered for the promotion to the rank of Director-General of Police, Tamil Nadu.”
In his reply to the supplementary affidavit filed on September 3 by the Tamil Nadu government, represented by its Principal Secretary, Home, when the writ petition by R. Nataraj, DGP and Director of Fire and Rescue Services, challenging the posting of Letika Saran, as DGP, Tamil Nadu, came up, Mr. Vijay Kumar said he had not suppressed any information in his affidavit.
Mr. Vijay Kumar has been cited as a respondent in the writ petition filed by Mr. Nataraj.
Mr. Vijay Kumar said the ‘insinuation' he had “suddenly entered appearance” through counsel was incorrect. As he was advised that a reference had been made in the court whether he had responded, and what his stand would be, he had filed an affidavit. In that he had very clearly sought the court's intervention in trying to ascertain “whether or not I was considered for the selection to the post of Director-General of Police in the State.”
Since Mr. Nataraj had moved the court and he (Nataraj) was senior to him in his batch, he felt there was no need for him to represent to the government. When the question arose as to what his stand was, he felt it was his duty to submit an affidavit.
He explained that the post of Director of the SVPNPA had been graded to the rank of Director-General of Police after his empanelment to the rank of DGP in the Union government.
The Secretary was “either unaware or feigns ignorance or has chosen not to bring to the notice” of the court the empanelment rules and posts in the Union government vis-à-vis the States by which an officer who may be the Chief Secretary in the State would only be a Secretary in the Government of India and not Cabinet Secretary (unless his batch had reached that level).
There was nothing unusual about a DGP of a State joining as Additional DGP at the Centre as it was based on year of seniority and empanelment date. Mr. Vijay Kumar said the averment that he had gone on his own volition was correct, but the presumptuous inference that it was “synonymous with my unwillingness to serve in the cadre,” was shocking and legally incorrect.
He said the State government ignored various facts. It had not placed the correct facts before the court, but had added insult to injury by saying that he had “suppressed” facts. He had not suppressed any information. The State government had suppressed information.
“Probably no proper selection has been made,” of the DGP, Tamil Nadu, as per the Supreme Court's guidelines in the Prakash Singh case. The averments suspecting his bona fides were “malicious, mischievous and are totally denied.”
